Union Of India vs. Gopalakrishnan K. K
AI Summary
The Supreme Court of India clarifies the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme for government employees, ruling that financial upgradation is based on immediate next grade pay rather than next promotional post, and applies from September 1, 2008, not January 1, 2006. This landmark judgment affects thousands of government employees and armed forces personnel seeking career progression benefits.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The case involves 51 consolidated petitions filed by government employees and Central Armed Forces personnel challenging the implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme. The employees contended that the MACP Scheme should be applicable with effect from 1st January 2006 (when the new pay structure was implemented) and that financial upgradation should be equivalent to the pay scale of the next promotional post. The Union of India contended that the MACP Scheme is applicable only with effect from 1st September 2008 and that financial upgradation should be to the immediate next grade pay in the hierarchy. The Delhi High Court had decided in favor of the employees in September 2019, prompting the government to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Timeline of Events
Government implemented revised pay structure with effect from 1st January 2006 following the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations.
Government issued Resolution dated 30th August 2008 accepting the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations regarding revised pay structure and ACP upgradations.
Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme came into effect, superseding the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme.
Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 was issued promulgating and operationalizing the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008.
Delhi High Court passed final judgment and order in 51 WPC cases deciding in favor of the employees, holding that MACP Scheme applies from 1.1.2006 and financial upgradation should be equivalent to next promotional post pay.
Union of India filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment.
First hearing of the consolidated petitions in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court pronounced final judgment partly allowing the appeals of the Union of India and setting aside the Delhi High Court's judgment to the extent it held that MACP applies from 1.1.2006 and provides for next promotional post pay.
Key Factual Findings
The MACP Scheme is an incentive scheme designed to relieve stagnation of government employees, not part of the pay structure.
Source: Current Court Finding
The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 neither postulate nor have any provision for grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme.
Source: Current Court Finding
The Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 is the operative document that promulgates and operationalizes the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008.
Source: Current Court Finding
The Government Resolution dated 30.08.2008 cannot be read as conferring any right on government employees as it was not notified and enforced.
Source: Current Court Finding
The Sixth Central Pay Commission recommended the MACP Scheme after careful deliberation to address inter-departmental disparities in promotional hierarchies.
Source: Recited from Sixth Central Pay Commission Report
The MACP Scheme provides for three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service to the next higher grade pay in the hierarchy.
Source: Current Court Finding
The ACP Scheme and MACP Scheme differ significantly in the frequency of upgradations and the basis for calculating financial upgradation.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The Union of India argued that: (1) The MACP Scheme should be applicable only with effect from 1.9.2008 as per the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009, not from 1.1.2006. (2) Under the MACP Scheme, financial upgradation should be to the immediate next grade pay in the pay band hierarchy, not to the pay scale of the next promotional post as under the old ACP Scheme. (3) The Government Resolution dated 30.08.2008 cannot be read as conferring any right on government employees as it was not notified and enforced. (4) Applying MACP with effect from 1.1.2006 would result in large-scale recoveries of amounts paid in excess and would be detrimental to a large number of employees, particularly those who have retired. (5) For Central Armed Forces personnel, pre-promotional course requirements should be strictly enforced.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent government employees argued that: (1) The MACP Scheme should be applicable with effect from 1.1.2006 when the new pay structure was implemented, as the scheme is part of the pay structure and affects pension. (2) Under the MACP Scheme, employees should receive financial upgradation equivalent to the pay scale of the next promotional post, similar to the benefits under the old ACP Scheme. (3) The Government Resolution dated 30.08.2008 clearly states that the revised pay structure should be implemented with effect from 1.1.2006, and MACP is part of this pay structure. (4) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' should apply, and employees should not be disadvantaged by the change from ACP to MACP. (5) For Central Armed Forces personnel, pre-promotional course requirements should be relaxed if they could not participate due to administrative reasons.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court reasoned as follows: (1) The MACP Scheme is an incentive scheme designed to relieve stagnation, not part of the pay structure. This is evident from the fact that the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 neither postulate nor have any provision for grant of financial upgradation under MACP. (2) The Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 is the operative document that promulgates and operationalizes the MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008. The Government Resolution dated 30.08.2008 cannot confer legal rights as it was not notified and enforced. (3) The Sixth Central Pay Commission, as an expert body, had recommended the MACP Scheme after careful deliberation to address inter-departmental disparities in promotional hierarchies. Courts should not substitute their views on policy matters with those of expert bodies unless the policy is bad on account of statutory violation, contravenes constitutional mandate, is discriminatory, manifestly arbitrary or negates fundamental rights. (4) The MACP Scheme provides for financial upgradation to the immediate next grade pay in the hierarchy, not the next promotional post pay. This is a deliberate change from the ACP Scheme to ensure uniformity across departments. (5) The three Judge Bench decision in M.V. Mohanan Nair has examined the MACP Scheme in depth and settled the controversy. The ratio in Balbir Singh Turn cannot be reconciled with M.V. Mohanan Nair. (6) For Central Armed Forces personnel, a liberal, pragmatic and ameliorative approach is required. Financial upgradation should be granted by relaxation in cases where they could not participate in pre-promotional courses due to administrative or other reasons.
- Deference to Expert Bodies - The Court deferred to the Sixth Central Pay Commission as an expert body and was reluctant to substitute its own views on policy matters.
- Emphasis on Statutory Language - The Court emphasized the importance of statutory language and the absence of any provision for MACP in the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
- Pragmatic Approach - The Court adopted a pragmatic approach for Central Armed Forces personnel by allowing relaxation of pre-promotional course requirements in cases of administrative reasons.
- Fiscal Responsibility - The Court considered the financial implications for the government and the potential burden on the public exchequer.
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.MACP Scheme is applicable with effect from 1.9.2008
- 2.Financial upgradation under MACP Scheme is equivalent to the immediate next grade pay in the hierarchy of the pay bands as stated in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008
- 3.For Central Armed Forces personnel, financial upgradation shall be granted by relaxation in cases where, on account of administrative or other reasons, they could not be sent for participation in pre-promotional course
- 4.Impugned judgments set aside to the extent they hold that MACP Scheme applies with effect from 1.1.2006 and that employees are entitled to financial upgradation equivalent to the next promotional post
Precedential Assessment
Binding (SC)
This is a Supreme Court judgment delivered by a Division Bench on a matter of significant importance affecting thousands of government employees across India. It clarifies the law on MACP Scheme implementation and is binding on all lower courts and government authorities. The judgment also overrules or distinguishes earlier conflicting precedents.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
22 Aug 2022
Order Text
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19129/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-02-2021 in WPC No. 1784/2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MADAN SINGH Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.149720/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) WITH SLP(C) No. 42/2022 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.469/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Diary No(s). 26989/2021 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.151481/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.151482/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 12-01-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhvi G. Divan, ASG Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s)
ITEM NO.5 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Tag with SLP(C) D. No. 14322 of 2020.
(SONIA BHASIN) (RAJ RANI NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) DY. REGISTRAR
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order